Project Reality Forums

Engineer wrote:I share the same concerns with SOF, but I cant see changes in .85 and this commander/map suggestion to be comparable.

I'm not against teamwork/teamplay. But I am against putting everything behind one man, that most likely isn't competent enough to handle that responsibility. And this is what this suggestion is aiming for, is it not?

It is not. At least not from me. I want ONLY infantry to lose their map icons.

badmojo420 wrote:00SoldierofFortune00 you must really hate the new changes to .85, relying on APCs and logistics squads? Nobody drives APCs for transport now, and nobody runs logistics squads for anything other then farming jeeps, it should be an epic fail then?

Just because they put it ingame (apcs and logistics) doesn't mean everyone is going to do it. If that were true, this would be the perfect game as everyone would do what was intended with whatever it is.
Ex. 1 manning apcs and vehicles etc.

Of course APCs are used to transport troops and of course there are logistics in real life. My MOS is logistics in the military lol. But that doesn't mean it is going to translate well ingame. Fact is, you are going to have a hard time finding someone to shuttle supply boxes back and forth ingame for any length of time because 1. it is boring, and 2. this is an FPS, not RTS. I haven't commented on that yet though as I don't know of all the changes that have to deal with that, so that is for another discussion.

I've read all your posts, and i don't really feel like replying to all of your comments. But, i disagree with all of them, and its clear you're not going to even try to see it the way we do. You hear what you want to hear, and ignore the IDEA behind this. Why must you search for a detail in this system that might fail? It's a suggestion, it's not a perfect system set in stone.

You know why I am against it? Because this same suggestion has been brought up hundreds of times (literally) with the same flawed logic of making the game harder in an attempt to weed out the noobs and somehow force more teamwork. Rather than trying to force teamwork, we need suggestions that would give a side an advantage when they use it correctly, but still a chance to win without it. This suggestion calls for a CO every game. Unless you make it so there is a CO every game and a competent one at that, this idea will never work.

Can you give me one GOOD reason why infantry troops need to know the locations, names & squads of every other player on the battlefield, at all times? And TK'ing isn't a reason. It will happen no matter what. We could have huge blue names above heads that you can see from the other side of the map, if theres friendly fire people will TK.

And I agree, there will always be tking, but with the minimap, it stops a lot of that tking. Its awareness you cannot replicate ingame. Face it, not everyone IDs targets. If they did, then people would still be going as collaborators. So the minimap is an added way of seeing if friendlies are in an area before letting lose on it. And as stated, the nametags don't pop up for a few seconds, so even more reason for it.

As far as this not being realistic. I'm not in the military, but I'm pretty sure they don't issue a nice color display to every infantry soldier, to carry around and keep tabs on everyone's whereabouts. It's more likely that they(or even groups) would be issued a device that tracks them. And the displays would be used in vehicles and command centers. Where massive TK'ing can happen without it.

As others and I have said before, the minimap is about situational awareness. It is actually less about getting around the battlefield (since most of us already know the maps) and more about knowing where the hell you are and where your friendlies and enemies are. You can't turn your head ingame, you can't yell at your friendlies to stop firing from across the field, and when attacking, you need to know where they are going and adopt accordingly.

In fact i think a great idea would be to add a chair to the firebases, so a squad leader could sit down at the radio and look at the full map. Someone suggested this for the commander, but it would be better suited to SLs if these changes happened. Maybe even put extra "seats" for squad members to come in and see what the SL is seeing.

Ok, so to reiterate, I just want to know your reason the infantry units(not in vehicle) should keep their wrist watch blue force tracking systems. Having no commander and incompetent players aside. A real reason game-play would be so much better with it.

No, you cannot put CO and incompetent players aside. The whole reason why a change in any patch does not work is because of one of the above. This isn't CSS. The maps in this game are huge and there are 32 players per side. I think the way most of you are looking at this is from the eyes of smaller games. There isn't a game like PR. With CSS, you don't need a minimap because maps are extremely small and awareness isn't effected. If you want to know more reasons why, then actually read my reply to McLuv where I laid out the negatives of it.

What are your reasons for actually implimenting this? What does it add gameplay wise to make the game more fun or rewarding? If someone wanted to feel more "immersed" as you suggest, they simply don't have to bring the minimap up. And what are your excuses for when there is no CO? Like I said, you can't depend on someone who isn't always there.

Sorry for length.

Teek wrote:If SOF doesn't like an idea, he will flame it and will not change his argument no matter what you say, even if you prove him wrong, so don't waste your breath (figuratively speaking).

LOL at this. This is a forum, hence expressing your viewpoint. I have yet to see the positives of why this should be implimented, and they have yet to refute the reasons I have against it. Too many times people look at it from the best point of view rather than the worst which should always be looked at first considering you are playing on pubs with unknown players and people who aren't perfect. This isn't the PR tournament. Rather than trying to make things "harder" or more "hardcore" on players in an attempt to force teamwork, reward the players who take advantage of the advantages put ingame for them like CO etc. not dependent on them.


If you don't have any reasons for or against this suggestion, then please stay out of the discussion. The only flames I see are from you towards me. Do I have to agree with every suggestion you put out? I can't be pragmatic or skeptical about anything now?

badmojo420 wrote:Your concerns sound like there will be no maps except for the commanders. All vehicles from the M1A2 to the insurgent dirt bike would still need to have the full map and mini map. So when nobody is commander it would be an easy task to jump in a vehicle, look at the map, and decide where to attack or defend based on what others are doing. 90% of the time you use a vehicle to get to the flag.

There won't be many vehicles in 0.85. The DEVs already stated that they are limiting most squad vehicles to urban maps like Ramiel. Another reason IMO why the minimap will be more beneficial in the future since more time will be spent walking over using vehicles.

But you'll know what your current objective is and how that is going. And it's as easy as texting 'Anyone attacking docks?' and you'll have a few people at least with map access at the time.

A lot of the time, your current objective is dependent upon what other squads are doing. If the other squads are all going to one flag, then why should you when you could attack another objective? The current minimap would keep ingame chat much cleaner too.

McLuv wrote:make it so that Squad leaders could have a topographical map as a "weapon" with which he could see objectives, but can't see any infantry. All of the squad members would have to rely on the SL, as they would not have the maps.

This would not apply for vehicles, as they still have their mini maps simulating GPSs I guess.

I see many Pros with this inclusion:

• The need to use landmarks to know where you're going and not get lost.
• The need to correctly ID targets through their uniforms before firing.
• A heavier reliance of the commander to give friendly positions.
• Another advantage to having a commander, because of an all-revealing map.
• A more in-depth playing experience.
• An expanded hierarchy providing each higher level (SM, SL, Commander) with better tools to be situationally aware. (from no map, to topographical map, to satellite map with friendly positions).
• Makes the commander useful, as he can keep his job, but is the only one aware of all the battlefield intel. He can now be used to coordinate the squads properly, since they'll need to rely on him.

A few potential problems exist, however, including:

• How would infantry know where to attack/defend?
• Would require enough time-consuming work put into it.

That first problem can be dealt with by either having (if possible) the map "weapon" show the attack and defend icons on the map, but with the image changed to look more like it's been just "drawn" onto the map.

If that's not possible, then a commander could provide the intel, making his/her role so much more important.

I endorse this idea. Make the commander the only one who knows what everyone on the team is doing and you'll never be without one.
And if your team still lacks one single person willing to command, even with such a unique ability, then, quite frankly, you don't deserve to win.

Yea SOF is explaining his reasons in perfect and normal language this time. Hes not flaming at all.

BadMojo: I realised there where vehicles with maps around. And I was talking about defending a firebase/area with a firebase when the SL was playing CO in the firebase. Because than a Rally would be set up elsewhere for if the firebase rally falls.

I really like this idea but like SOF im not sure how it will implement in the game. Dont forget that in real life its so much easier to communicate with other squads, feel, hear, see (the situational awareness).

Also something I said earlier. In real life your being briefed in big operations. You are also briefed what the other teams, squads and elements are up to. So when you go in you know where you can expect your other teams and stuff. We dont have that in here. I know in Battle almost any plan fails or is used differently but thats why you get a CO. To keep everyone up to date while they are fighting.

Now with a mini map like we have currently its not needed but that makes up for the loss of the real life situational awareness

I guess i expect too much from PR. All the changes compared to vbf2 made me think of it as a hardcore mod, with no exceptions. If the dev's want to keep it dumb'ed down to make it more playable by the average gamer, thats fine. I will still play. I'm simply here giving my suggestions for what i believe will create a better PR expierence.

What are your reasons for actually implimenting this? What does it add gameplay wise to make the game more fun or rewarding?

I'm not going to list my reasons i believe this will make better game play. You can read my other posts. Anything i say will have your 'logic' applied and dismissed.

badmojo420 wrote:I guess i expect too much from PR. All the changes compared to vbf2 made me think of it as a hardcore mod, with no exceptions. If the dev's want to keep it dumb'ed down to make it more playable by the average gamer, thats fine. I will still play. I'm simply here giving my suggestions for what i believe will create a better PR expierence.

Dont get me wrong. As I mentioned several times. If it was just me and the guys I usually play with Im all for! Its just that I dont want to come home after a long day at work, looking forward to my usual evening of PR and find that this public game is not playable because of people who cant work with PR

Or that I have to wait half an hour before the hard-core guys that still kept playing filled up the server.

Engineer wrote:Don't give up so easily...

What I'm giving up is debating the whole 'noob players letting us down and ruining our game' argument. How can you ever increase the team work in a game, with that argument holding ground?

Such a drastic move as removing all units from our map won't happen without a fight... The 'removal of minimap' was a hot topic for decades, till it finally got removed.

Of course this suggestion is getting all kinds of posts, after a long fight we can maybe be friends again?

The reason current vehicles have a minimap visible now is because of FF. It also makes easier to organize transport for squads without having to go thru amounts of talk. Not to mention it is easier for SL's to decide what to do by looking at his map, and friendly positions.

I think all these are justified. If you take it away, it will just make things way too hard for all of these units. I wouldn't mind removing the map markers from normal squad members position, and letting SL's to do the communication... But giving this ability only to commander is bit too much.

Give the SLs the maps, rest of squad gets an empty one with only their location. Therefore squad leaders also see the big picture. Dropping the command down a notch. I personally believe this isn't required. That without SLs having maps, more people would be commander. Of course it would need testing. Like you said about needing a map with regards to transport, if a vehicle will have the map, all the squad leader needs to do is request transport and wait for the 'vehicle on the way' from someone in a vehicle. A marker is set on that squad, they sit and wait. Of course you can't pop up the map and watch the helicopter icon move to you. But is that such a huge loss? If precise transport is a big priority for your squad, the person transporting should be in squad with voip anyway. And they could give you a ETA if needed.

My whole reason for wanting this change is to increase the teamwork and immersion into the game. One of the many examples i could think of would be hearing an APC on muttrah while hiding in the corner of an alley. And pulling up the map to see a blue APC icon moving beside you. How is that any fun? Granted in real life a soldier would know when a friendly APC is with the assault i'm guessing. But as far as exact position, heading, status. And every soldier?

Lets think about that situation in my version where not even squad leaders have maps and we've won the lottery and paid someone to be our commander.

I hear an APC to my north. "I hear an APC north" the squad hears this and checks it out. Now a bunch of things can happen here.

1. Squad member sees the friendly apc, recognizes the model/skin and reports it as friendly.

2. Nobody can get a visual, squad leader radios in to the commander, commander reports it as friendly. Squad leader tells squad.

3. A little bird supporting your squad sees it from the air, or checks his map and reports it as friendly.

4. APC driver sitting there with nothing to do at the moment informs you that they're the APC north of you.

5. Turns out there is 2 APCs, one enemy, one friendly. In the current system you wouldn't think twice. But maybe after asking the commander about the APC he reports that our teams APC needs assistance in taking out the other one. Now the intelligence would be more then just a blue icon on a map.

6. Supply truck arrives to drop crates. SL would jump in and tell drive to hold while he checks the map. Reports it as friendly.

No matter which one happens, the whole squad is aware of a friendly APC to the north without having to take their eyes off the battle once. How often do you report when stuff like that occurs? Everyone should know. But then you see people fire at targets you've already checked on your map as friendly. And it's not entierly their fault. This system supports people who've become accustomed to hitting caps lock, and looking at an angle versus the size of the map, and where you saw the target. This is pure video game tactics that i hate about most games. When i first got PR i was so happy thinking that they got rid of this. I always attributed this to mini-maps. At first i only tried the map button which takes a few seconds. Once i found out people used the squad screen like a mini map i tried it and got much better. But it lost something. It started to feel more like the normal bf2 again, staring at dots on a map, instead of looking into the amazing world they've created for us. Anyway, /rant

Will you people get a freakin clue?

This WONT work.
Tell me in one way how this will benefit without breaking the fucking mechanics to where no body knows wtf is going and ends up at main throwing smoke and tk'ing.

If this got implemented in .85 I guarantee all of you would come back complaining about how horrible it is.

Incomplete Spork wrote:Will you people get a freakin clue?

This WONT work.
Tell me in one way how this will benefit without breaking the fucking mechanics to where no body knows wtf is going and ends up at main throwing smoke and tk'ing.

If this got implemented in .85 I guarantee all of you would come back complaining about how horrible it is.

It seemed to be a really good idea at first, but playing on Qwai River yesterday, I noticed that I actually use the map a LOT, especially in combat. You gotta know where your squad & the others are heading, imho that's a key aspect to being effective in a firefight - apart from the communication of course. So again IMHO it wouldn't work on a public server.

Would never work with good organization. And that's impossible on public servers.

On another note, if this were done then the signal smoke grenades would actually be used for, dare I say, signaling? Currently, popping a colored smoke nade is not necessary for air/ground or ground/ground troop coordination. It's just as likely to be thrown as a regular smoke nade as it is to be used as a marker.

The more i think about this the less I like it. None of this will work without a decent commander, and we dont want to regress to the point where without a good commander the games suck.

A good team can look at the map presently, see whose defending what and make up their mind what the state of the battle is. Without this info 90% of the time you will have SLs that are uninformed about how the battle is going, and end up with less teamwork and less co-ordination. As SoF said, remember this is a game, there are no battleplans. On public games almost every action is made up on the spot, and without the location of your friendlies visible, you take away the ability to make basic decisions, do we defend, do we attack etc....

For me I have to say that because of my job and other things I don't have much time to play games. The only game I play is PR, because for me it's a good balance between reality AND game, BUT with the "real" feature of getting rid of movements on map or putting away the map itself would surely be a step backwards and I for sure won't play it anymore.
Let me explain with MY experiences in PR:
I am 99% of my PR time playing as SL, and as all of you SLs know, the map is VERY essential. I don't need to have a firefight, I am fine lying in a safe place and leading my squad with map open and seeing everybody,e.g. "Damn, 3 blues of sq5 just disappeared, SM1 and SM2 go and check it out"

Ok, now some of you suggested that SL still should have map only SM not, then let me tell you another INGAME example:
How often did a SL tell you "Go to SM1 and bring him ammo, he has got the HAT"? or your Marksman says "30 degrees NW of my position is enemy"? So how the heck can you engage the enemy as rifleman if your marksman is higher/at your flank, etc. and YOU DONT KNOW WHERE HE IS "The marksman is right there at the tree (on Fools road )

To make it short: The idea is nice, but next time you play try to keep this in mind and you will notice that the map is such an essential thing for FUN and GAMEPLAY and that is why I play this mod...
In real you have a battleplan, in real its your damn job to walk 3 hours for nothing, in real you don't wanna engage enemy, in real you do more "boring" things... and all those "real" things you dont wanna have in a GAME, so for me the argumentation "in real you dont have yourself on a map movin" is such ****. You would be the first to leave PR if we get rid of spawn points and firebases to spawn but instead you first have to get a transport to FB/bunkers, etc. because its more realistic...

Like I said, I LOVE PR and the devs found a good balance between reality and game!

I thought that the map represented a kind of situational awareness that you simply cannot replicate without actually immersing in all of the senses in a situation.
Another thing is that after all the training, you probably have a much greater sense of what a friendly looks like from lots of angles and distances.
It's another one of the game mechanics that isn't realistic in and by itself, but is a compensation for the level of realism currently unattainable by a simulation on a computer.
Just like in real life, accidents do currently happen in the system.

mat552 wrote:I thought that the map represented a kind of situational awareness that you simply cannot replicate without actually immersing in all of the senses in a situation.
Another thing is that after all the training, you probably have a much greater sense of what a friendly looks like from lots of angles and distances.
It's another one of the game mechanics that isn't realistic in and by itself, but is a compensation for the level of realism currently unattainable by a simulation on a computer.
Just like in real life, accidents do currently happen in the system.

I must disagree with you on this account, as I don't believe maps actually make you any more situationally aware. Of course it's just a game on a computer, but you could just as easily use that same excuse with every piece of HUD in BF2. But I would like to know what the map with the real-time position of all you team compensates for in real life. I also don't find it hard at all to ID players based simply on their uniforms, unless it's a quick glance from far away. But in that case, nobody should be able to identify them without getting a better look.

As to everyone else, this would of course be a radical change, imo for the better, but a huge change nonetheless. We cannot simply speculate about this subject without actually trying it out first. I have put a considerable amount of time thinking about it and writing it, but that alone cannot perfect it. It is therefore futile to say that we shouldn't even experiment with the proposed system because it fails by such and such flaw under such and such conditions.

This change won't make playing as infantry easier, but that doesn't mean it will become more stressful. I can't remember who it was, but someone said that one of the reasons that pr is great is that it offers a challenge, and that even just striving to complete it is all the more rewarding. It will immerse players far deeper into the environment than any other BF 2 mod that I can think of. I understand that my idea might not work perfectly at the moment, but we cannot simply shoot it down completely because of a few flaws. Many of these "flaws" as well are nothing more than "I don't like it"s. But to those that do their best to provide constructive comments on what some potential problems are and how to stop them I thank you.

McLuv wrote:But I would like to know what the map with the real-time position of all you team compensates for in real life.

Yeah me too, the only thing we lack that they have in RL is the ability to speak verbally to other people around you. How does a map compensate for that loss?

And yes i will agree with the people that say the map is used a hell of a lot. But, that doesn't mean it is good gameplay. I fail to see how it's so much more fun to pull up a 2d map and check for blue dots. It's along the same lines as looking at the dead/alive icons in smaller games. You fire some rounds at an enemy, not sure if he died or not, you check the scoreboard and see that all the players on the enemy team are dead. 0% chance the enemy you just shot at is still alive. How is that so much more fun and playable then walking up to his body and identifying if he is dead or alive still.

Personally i think if they are going to keep the map for every soldier. Why not just bring back the mini-map for everyone? The squad map is used exactly the same way.

Incomplete Spork wrote:Perhaps?
bf2 map idea - Xfire Video

Great, but ever kit must be changed for every map, and that would tale too much work.




About the topic, guys, think, today most of the soldiers have a GPS.